LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0 - Page 73

Steve2726 · #**1441** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 4:43 PM**

^^^^^^^

That sounds like debt payments for the previous renovation only, not anything new unfortunately. Scary to think that they still haven't paid for the previous disaster.

Illithid Dude · #**1442** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 4:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Caught this tidbid in BlogDowntown's Around the Halls column this morning:

Source: BlogDowntown

So, the good news: Pershing Square is getting renovated. Yay!

The bad news: How far can $660,000 possibly go? Maybe they can do something about that ridiculous purple tower, and bring the landscaping into the 21st century. But these are cosmetic issues. The systemic problems with the park...namely the configuration of the parking garage ramps that severely limit access to the park, cannot possibly be resolved with this paltry sum. And I worry that this minor "renovation" will mean that a true renovation for Pershing Square will be off the table for a long time.

Thoughts?

Maybe the $660,000 is just for an EIR or something.

DistrictDirt · #**1443** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve2726

^^^^^^^

That sounds like debt payments for the previous renovation only, not anything new unfortunately. Scary to think that they still haven't paid for the previous disaster.

You're right...I completely misread the article. Whoops!

I agree though...its sad that the previous botched renovation in the 90's is still being paid for.

pesto · #**1444** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

the average income for new downtown residents is about 100,000. plenty of demand and low supply.

Also, you are so off on the event stadium, its not even funny. we have gone over this numerous times on this board, but the event center is on the edge of the downtown periphery and is located next to a freeway and parking lots. its the best location for it and is ALREADY bringing in investments into downtown. it can only be good.

The preoccupation with DT becoming all things simultaneously is understandable but not productive. In sheer magnitude of developed area, only NY compares with LA so I'll use it for comparison. Its priciest urban neighborhoods are the Upper East Side and SoHo. Are there stadiums, bus terminals, convention centers and similar heavy traffic centers in these areas? Conversely, do Barney's and Bloomingdale's look for space around MSG, Penn Station, Grand Central, the Javits?

A football stadium, a Bloomingdale's and lots of high-rise luxury residential are all great ideas and I hope the demand for them is there. But I don't see why well-to-do people in a large cosmopolitan city want to live next to a football stadium. Or why Macy's would consider a football stadium and "digital sign district" to be a signal to bring on Bloomies (or Saks or Neiman, etc).

If you want to talk more middle of the road, I have less issue. I can see a Nordstrom's Rack or TJ Maxx joining Target in DT. But if you are looking for upper-end housing and shopping, the image has to be very different: check out BH or the Upper East Side or various rich suburbs and note what's there.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**1445** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 6:14 PM**

Yes, $660K is VERY little and I don't know what that can possibly do. For heaven's sake, that tiny little pocket park in Los Feliz built in the middle of Hollywood Blvd cost over $800,000.

It would take a MINIMUM of $15 million to do any meaningful work to Pershing Square. (That was the amount the Quimby funds would have gone toward PS from Park Fifth assessments)

My hope is that whatever work they do plan to do, it will be work that can be continued once more money is found. Meaning, they better not put in bullshit that will just have to be taken out again if there is a full-scale remodel. It would be GREAT if they can remove the ugly-ass purple tower.

pesto · #**1446** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

You're right...I completely misread the article. Whoops!

I agree though...its sad that the previous botched renovation in the 90's is still being paid for.

This is why I like 30/10 for Purple but not for Foothill and others. Not only are they low demand, but we will be paying the principle and interest to the investment banks and Chinese (who place and fund US govt. debt) well into our retirement. And beyond.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**1447** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

You're right...I completely misread the article. Whoops!

I agree though...its sad that the previous botched renovation in the 90's is still being paid for.

This is actually good news in some way because I was afraid that money would be put into Pershing Square, giving it more longevity than it deserves.

The entire ugly ass thing needs to be completely ripped apart and start over!

I really think Pershing Square either needs a really rich philanthropist who is willing to cough up $20 million, or Park Fifth needs to come back from the dead and we can use those Quimby funds to pay for it.

Illithid Dude · #**1448** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 6:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

This is why I like 30/10 for Purple but not for Foothill and others. Not only are they low demand, but we will be paying the principle and interest to the investment banks and Chinese (who place and fund US govt. debt) well into our retirement. And beyond.

We should have some sort of 30/10 for city beautification. Bus lanes, bike lanes, trees on barren streets, new parks, that sort of things. I'd vote for it.

Muji · #**1449** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

We should have some sort of 30/10 for city beautification. Bus lanes, bike lanes, trees on barren streets, new parks, that sort of things. I'd vote for it.

That's got to be one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time!

LA/OCman · #**1450** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 10:08 PM**

Speaking of parks, not only does the city not have money to maintain the millions they spent on the LAPD HQ landscaping...but the Spring St. park breaks ground next month and there is no funding in place for maintenance and security. From what I understand..a group of property owners are trying to start a non-profit to maintain the park. LAPD has only a group of residents who maintain the landscaping once a month and parks and rec who mow the lawn and fix sprinklers. So crazy.

At least they have one year to fundraise for the Spring St. park....that is when it should be completed. I hope funding is in place to maintain the huge Civic Center Park!

Where are our public officials? We need a leader to oversee Downtown's public spaces. Why can't Quimby funds be used to provide maint. and security?

Illithid Dude · #**1451** Posted **Jul 11, 2011, 10:21 PM**

Just throwing this out there, but the new City Planning dude has said that he accepts that signage is now a major part of how projects receive financing. I don't like this. I don't like electronic signage and think that it isn't classy or nice, and sort of grudgingly accept it's place in L.A. I don't want there to be any more then there has to, and when someone as high powered as this guy says something this positive about electronic signage it makes me worried. And don't want all of downtown to turn into a giant Times Square. People seem to forget that the people who live in NY hate Times Square, and Times Square only really appeals to tourists and the people that get money from the signs. Downtown has a good thing going with the condos and independent stores and such. Don't ruin it with electronic signs.

JDRCRASH · #**1452** Posted **Jul 12, 2011, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

This is why I like 30/10 for Purple but not for Foothill and others. Not only are they low demand, but we will be paying the principle and interest to the investment banks and Chinese (who place and fund US govt. debt) well into our retirement. And beyond.

Seriously, why are you determining the whole Gold Line Foothill corridor is a failure based SOLEY on Phase I? I told you, the terminus stations of Phase IIA, IIB, and Phase III to ONT, are all TEN TIMES better than the Sierra Madre Villa station.

Besides, density is hardly a valuable measurement to determining "demand". Look at the Gold Line East LA branch. At best, it adds only 10,000 riders. I know it isn't as long as it's Foothill counterpart, but still.

JDRCRASH · #**1453** Posted **Jul 12, 2011, 1:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Just throwing this out there, but the new City Planning dude has said that he accepts that signage is now a major part of how projects receive financing. I don't like this. I don't like electronic signage and think that it isn't classy or nice, and sort of grudgingly accept it's place in L.A. I don't want there to be any more then there has to, and when someone as high powered as this guy says something this positive about electronic signage it makes me worried. And don't want all of downtown to turn into a giant Times Square. People seem to forget that the people who live in NY hate Times Square, and Times Square only really appeals to tourists and the people that get money from the signs. Downtown has a good thing going with the condos and independent stores and such. Don't ruin it with electronic signs.

I agree. Restrict the billboards to South Park and Hollywood Blvd (between La Brea and Highland).

LosAngelesDreamin · #**1454** Posted **Jul 12, 2011, 3:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I agree. Restrict the billboards to South Park and Hollywood Blvd (between La Brea and Highland).

I actually LOVE signage... It adds energy to the night... But I agree having signage all over downtown probably isn't a good idea.. South Park, Hollywood, Koreatown and Broadway are perfect places for that though and have no problem with adding more signage in those areas.

I was in Vegas this passed weekend and the city felt so ALIVE and you felt safe walking outside because of all the lights... outside the strip everything seemed dead at night.

JDRCRASH · #**1455** Posted **Jul 12, 2011, 5:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

I actually LOVE signage... It adds energy to the night... But I agree having signage all over downtown probably isn't a good idea.. South Park, Hollywood, Koreatown and Broadway are perfect places for that though and have no problem with adding more signage in those areas.

I was in Vegas this passed weekend and the city felt so ALIVE and you felt safe walking outside because of all the lights... outside the strip everything seemed dead at night.

I don't think Broadway should ever have supergraphic-style signage. It'll likely be best to keep it neon-style. Same with Koreatown.

LAofAnaheim · #**1456** Posted **Jul 12, 2011, 6:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Seriously, why are you determining the whole Gold Line Foothill corridor is a failure based SOLEY on Phase I? I told you, the terminus stations of Phase IIA, IIB, and Phase III to ONT, are all TEN TIMES better than the Sierra Madre Villa station.

Besides, density is hardly a valuable measurement to determining "demand". Look at the Gold Line East LA branch. At best, it adds only 10,000 riders. I know it isn't as long as it's Foothill counterpart, but still.

Let's be reasonable here.....the Foothill Gold Line should only go out to Asuza. Metrolink already runs in the parking lot of the Ontario Airport...just build a station there using existing Metrolink. It's no point running a light rail line in a very low density suburb to ONT. Asuza is as far as it should go. The bus service is incredibly weak east of Asuza.

There are 2 key reasons why the East LA Gold Line doesn't pick up more than 10K/day....

1 - low speed on 3rd and 1st street due to non-grade separated segments
2 - most of the riders want to go INTO downtown LA and it's more convenient taking the 30, 730, 31, 66, 52, 51, 720, etc.. These bus routes are more DIRECT into the downtown core where East LA residents/shoppers want to go

Foothill Gold Line ridership projection is very low...so low that Metro specifically told Foothill to not apply for federal funding because this project could have jeopardized the worthy projects of the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector for funding.

Also, a lot of people don't have much love for Foothill as the Foothill Gold Line Authority was specifically AGAINST Measure R..asking their constituents to vote 'no'. Of course, that didn't happen. But once it passed, Foothill was the first people with their hands out. So, some of us do consider the Foothill peeps to be hypocrites about funding reasonable mass transit projects.

I support the Foothill Gold Line to Asuza.....but that's it. There's no need to go further east....

Illithid Dude · #**1457** Posted **Jul 12, 2011, 8:08 AM**

Remember how everyone was talking about how high-end retail should come to downtown? Well, as I was reading Brigham Yen's blog (for it is awesome) I found an article he wrote. Apparently, on 7th Street, a clothing retailer has signed on. Not just some cheepo clothing retailer. We're talking a retailer that will be carrying the same high-end stuff Bloomingdales would be carrying. I've always envisioned Downtown turning into something of a SoHo type place, with independent high-end boutiques and high-end loft living. It seems we are heading in that direction.

LosAngelesDreamin · #**1458** Posted **Jul 12, 2011, 11:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I don't think Broadway should ever have supergraphic-style signage. It'll likely be best to keep it neon-style. Same with Koreatown.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that... Koreatown and broadway should stay like the classic neon signs, architectural lighting and such.. While hollywood and southpark showcase what they have today and expand in their districts

pesto · #**1459** Posted **Jul 12, 2011, 3:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Remember how everyone was talking about how high-end retail should come to downtown? Well, as I was reading Brigham Yen's blog (for it is awesome) I found an article he wrote. Apparently, on 7th Street, a clothing retailer has signed on. Not just some cheepo clothing retailer. We're talking a retailer that will be carrying the same high-end stuff Bloomingdales would be carrying. I've always envisioned Downtown turning into something of a SoHo type place, with independent high-end boutiques and high-end loft living. It seems we are heading in that direction.

This would be an excellent sign! Hopefully many more to follow.

I've thought about the analogy between Bway and SoHo as well (8-12 stories, many architectural gems, until recently largely abandonded or very down market, walking distance to civic center and some high-rises). One big difference is that Manhattan had a serious shortage of reasonably priced department stores and small retailers. Locals commonly went (and still go to some extent) to NJ to do serious shopping for clothing, household appliances, garden, etc.

SoHo has managed to pull-off high-end and mid-range shopping almost next to each other. I can't see enough money coming to DT to pull of the SoHo miracle because there are so many other convenient shopping opportunities in LA. But I can easily see a solid, thriving mid-range center.

JDRCRASH · #**1460** Posted **Jul 13, 2011, 1:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Let's be reasonable here.....the Foothill Gold Line should only go out to Asuza. Metrolink already runs in the parking lot of the Ontario Airport...just build a station there using existing Metrolink.

To be fair, Metrolink actually doesn't go to the airport. You have to take a shuttle from a parking lot well over two miles away.

Besides, a new Metrolink line that would add only one station? A "stub" line? I don't think so, especially with the Express trains now running.